A Simple Fix for Glancing Blow

[slobo777]

Okay, now we have a legitimate issue to talk about.

However, I think this is to a great portion caused by the playtest having only stats for critters and dumb brutes who simply soak damage instead of avoiding damage. Which I don't think are the types of enemies this ability has been made for. It gets interesting once you get to enemies that are hard to hit.
Admitedly, putting Glancing Blow in this playtest package where there are no such encounters wasn't such a smart idea.

Yes, any enemy or condition that would cause you to miss even though you hit the required AC could be partially countered

I'm not convinced that is how we've ended up here.

What I'm seeing is the Slayer's mechanic from playtest 1, watered down due to feedback from testers that didn't like the auto-damage mechanic. Unfortunately it's been over-corrected (or badly written possibly IMO) to the point of being ineffective.

 

[GreyICE]

*sigh*

Autodamage

More prevalent in 2E and 3E than 4E, but apparently the end of the world when fighters get it.

Probably the best solution is the expertise dice one. I thought the original mechanic was actually pretty good (a fighter is good enough that in 6 seconds of swinging his sword he will connect, and even if you parry/block the blow or absorb it on your armor/hide you still FEEL it) and it wasn't the sort of thing that was totally overlookable, but WotC seems gunshy about complaints here. It's honestly like watching a big friendly puppy. "Look, I can sit, I can sit! Oh, you don't want me to sit, I can roll over! How's that? I can roll over! Lemme beg now, pleeeaaaassseee gimme a treat."

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes I agree with the simplified mechanic.

But as I posted on the other (duplicate?) thread, it might actually have been the designers' intent to turn roughly half of misses into opportunities for glancing blows (i.e. the value 10 is on a new, separate d20 roll).

I'm not saying that would be the best fix, just that it's possibly the original intent, badly worded in the packet.

I guess it's possible, but I consider it unlikely. Writing "the d20" seems a very strong indication that they are thinking of the die used for the attack roll. In any event, I wouldn't be too keen on having to roll an additional d20 just for this ability. The small auto-damage works very well for me.

 

[slobo777]

Writing "the d20" seems a very strong indication that they are thinking of the die used for the attack roll.

Of course they aren't thinking of the physical die, or necessarily of the result currently showing on the die (this is not trivial, you may have advantage or disadvantage).

You could go with:

"Make a roll of the d20. On a result of 10 or more . . ."

"Re-use the value from the d20 thatwas applied to the current attack*. If it is 10 or more . . ."

Note that both include "the d20". First means the physical die, although it is perhaps an unusual turn of phrase, I haven't found anything in the playtest packet can be used as a counter-example.

Second is a version of consensus interpretation (and I'm not saying I disagree, just playing devil's advocate). Oddly it seems quite difficult to write unambiguous exception rules in this case. You can't assume that the value needed is actually showing for example, and there is no codified short phrase in the rules for "the d20 roll used for an attack or check, before modifications".

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Glancing Blow would make the most sense if we brought back Touch AC. If you miss, but still make their touch AC, you may roll your expertise dice for damage.

 

[GreyICE]

But touch AC was like an 8-12 for most things, so hitting on everything except a 1 would be practically the same thing, without having to introduce an entire subsystem to handle it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Other potential solutions:

• Have it activate on any miss, but add "this damage can't reduce a creature to less than 1 HP."
• Have it activate on any miss with a melee attack.
• Just remove it; no one likes it anyway.

 

[kerleth]

Gotta Disagree

Glancing Blow is obviously an evolution of the 1st playtest's slayer mechanic. Lots of people cried that "a miss should be a miss!", so I think they tried to make it more palatable. That viewpoint doesn't really make sense with the way AC and armor is handled, but eh. I loved the 1st playtest's slayer mechanic. If my guy's thing was beatin' stuff up, then HE BEAT STUFF UP!!! It reminded me of the rogue's skill mastery. Your training and skill in this area allows you to compensate for the vagaries of chance, making the character feel like a real expert in his field. My vote is to just let you spend the dice on a miss and be done with it. It's the simplest option, and I don't think it would be game breaking.
P.S. The gotta disagree title of this post is in response to the last point in the previous post, that noone liked it anyways.

 

[FireLance]

Have it activate on any miss, but add "this damage can't reduce a creature to less than 1 HP."

This could work too, but I would rather have a generic rule that says something along the lines of: damage from a missed attack or a successful saving throw cannot reduce the target to less than 1 hit point.

So, Glancing Blow can't kill an enemy, but neither can missing with inflict light wounds, and a creature who passes its saving throw against fireball always survives (for a little while longer, at least).

 

[slobo777]

This could work too, but I would rather have a generic rule that says something along the lines of: damage from a missed attack or a successful saving throw cannot reduce the target to less than 1 hit point.

So, Glancing Blow can't kill an enemy, but neither can missing with inflict light wounds, and a creature who passes its saving throw against fireball always survives (for a little while longer, at least).

This wins for me, and would be a great addition to the core rules IMO.

In fact I think I'd consider it as a house rule in almost any version of D&D.